Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DISCLAIMER
As at its date of issue, this document, in whole or in part, is subject to consideration by the IMO organ
to which it has been submitted. Accordingly, its contents are subject to approval and amendment
of a substantive and drafting nature, which may be agreed after that date.
1 GENERAL
1.1 The Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW) held its
third session from 1 to 5 February 2016 under the Chairmanship of the Vice-Chairman of the
Sub-Committee, Ms. Mayte Medina (United States), as Mr. Bradley Groves (Australia), the
Chairman of the HTW Sub-Committee, who had been elected as Chairman of the Maritime
Safety Committee was not available to chair this session.
1.2 The session was attended by delegations from Member Governments and Associate
Members of IMO; by representatives from United Nations and specialized agencies; by
observers from intergovernmental organizations; and by observers from non-governmental
organizations in consultative status, as listed in document HTW 3/INF.1.
1.3 The Secretary-General welcomed participants and delivered his opening address, the
full text of which can be downloaded from the IMO website at the following link:
http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary-GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings
Chairman's remarks
1.4 In responding, the Vice-Chairman thanked the Secretary-General for his words of
welcome, the confidence he had expressed in her to chair the deliberations of the
Sub-Committee and for his advice; and assured him that his advice and requests would be
given every consideration by the Sub-Committee.
1.5 The Sub-Committee adopted the agenda (HTW 3/1), and agreed to be guided in its
work, in general, by the annotations to the provisional agenda contained in document
HTW 3/1/1 and Corr.1 and arrangements in document HTW 3/1/2/Rev.1. The agenda, as
adopted, with the list of documents considered under each agenda item, is set out in document
HTW 3/INF.[].
2.1 The Sub-Committee noted the decisions and comments pertaining to its work by
MEPC 68, MSC 95, SSE 2 and III 2 as reported in document HTW 3/2 (Secretariat); and the
outcome of SDC 3 relating to the draft amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 and associated
guidelines on damage control drills for passenger ships in document HTW 3/WP.7, and took
them into account in its deliberations under the relevant agenda items.
3.2 In the ensuing discussion the following views were expressed that:
.2 the Secretariat should not be overburdened with extra tasks that may not add
value;
.2 with the modifications made to the list of all model courses (document
HTW 2/WP.3, annex 5), as set out in annex 2, with a view to using the revised
format for future reports to the Sub-Committee.
3.4 The Sub-Committee urged interested Member States and international organizations
to assist the Organization in developing, reviewing and updating IMO model courses for which
the Sub-Committee had assigned prioritization category I (new model courses to be developed
as a result of new or amended IMO instruments) and II (existing model courses that require
significant changes, either individual or cumulative, due to amendments to IMO instruments
and/or significant industry/technological changes).
3.5 The Sub-Committee noted that the draft revised model courses, submitted by the
Secretariat to this session in documents HTW 3/3/1 on Advanced Chemical Tanker Training,
HTW 3/3/2 on Radar Navigation, HTW 3/3/3 on Personal Survival and Social Responsibilities
and HTW 3/3/4 on Engine room Simulator, had been revised and updated in accordance with
the guidelines in force prior to the approval of MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.15 on Revised Guidelines
for the development, review and validation of model courses, as the work on them commenced
prior to adoption of the Revised Guidelines.
Revised model course 1.03 on Advanced training for chemical tanker cargo operations
3.6 The Sub-Committee gave preliminary consideration to the draft revised model course
related to training in Advanced Training for chemical tanker cargo operations (HTW 3/3/1,
annex).
3.7 In this context, the Sub-Committee recalled that, due to significant inconsistencies in
alignment with the STCW Code, HTW 2 was unable to finalize the review of the model course
and had established a correspondence group under the coordination of the United States to
continue this work intersessionally, for finalization with a view to validation at this session.
3.8 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.1 significant work has been done to address the concerns raised at HTW 2;
.2 the review of the model course should focus only on Part D as the aspects
had already been considered at HTW 2; and
.3 the absence in this draft model course of a reference to the need to cease
operations on flammable cargoes in the proximity of electrical storms.
3.9 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/3/1 to the
Drafting Group to be established on validation of model courses, for detailed consideration and
to compare the scope of the provisions in the STCW Code related to Advanced training for
chemical tanker cargo operations and the contents of the draft model course as presented,
with a view to its validation by the Sub-Committee.
3.10 The Sub-Committee gave preliminary consideration to the draft revised model course
related to training in Radar navigation at operational level (HTW 3/3/2, annex) which was
revised/updated following the adoption of the 2010 Manila Amendments to the STCW
Convention and Code. The draft model course was forwarded to the validation panel for their
comments, which were incorporated, as appropriate.
3.11 In the absence of comments, the Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/3/2 to
the Drafting Group to be established on validation of model courses, for detailed consideration
and to compare the scope of the provisions in the STCW Code related to training in Radar
navigation at operational level and the contents of the draft model course as presented, with a
view to its validation by the Sub-Committee.
3.12 The Sub-Committee gave preliminary consideration to the draft revised model course
related to training in Personal safety and social responsibility (HTW 3/3/3), which was revised
following the adoption of the 2010 Manila Amendments to the STCW Convention and Code.
The draft model course was forwarded to the validation panel for their comments, which were
incorporated, as appropriate.
3.13 In the absence of comments, the Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/3/3 to
the Drafting Group to be established on validation of model courses, for detailed consideration
and to compare the scope of the provisions in the STCW Code related to training in Personal
safety and social responsibility and the contents of the draft model course as presented, with
a view to its validation by the Sub-Committee.
3.14 The Sub-Committee gave preliminary consideration to the draft revised model course
related to training in Engine-Room Simulators (HTW 3/3/4) which had been further
revised/updated as instructed by HTW 2, consequent to the adoption of the 2010 Manila
Amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. The draft model course was forwarded to
the validation panel for their comments but, due to time constraints, comments received could
not be incorporated prior to submission for consideration by the Sub-Committee.
.1 this model course had been submitted for validation under the existing
process before the approval of the Revised Guidelines for the development,
review and validation of model courses as set out in MSC-MEPC. 2/Circ.15;
.2 the contents should be aligned with the requirements of the STCW Code;
.3 the advanced level course should reflect the KUP in the STCW Code; and
.4 the content of the model course should take into account the international
nature and IMO model courses and the delivery of such courses globally
through different maritime education and training providers.
3.16 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/3/4 to the
Drafting Group to be established for finalization of the model courses, for detailed
consideration and to compare the scope of the provisions in the STCW Code related to training
in Engine-Room Simulators and the contents of the draft model course as presented, with a
view to its validation by the Sub-Committee.
3.17 The Sub-Committee, having noted document HTW 3/INF.3 (IAMU and IMLA),
accepted with appreciation the offer to revise the model course on On-board Assessment
(2001 Edition) in parallel with model course 3.12 on Assessment, Examination and Certification
of Seafarers and model course 6.09 on Training course for Instructors, and invited them to
submit the draft model courses for consideration by the Sub-Committee at its next session.
Basic and Advanced training for masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on ships
subject to the IGF Code
3.18 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information from Norway on their
progress in preparing the draft model courses on Basic and Advanced training for masters,
officers, ratings and other personnel on ships subject to the IGF Code, and invited them to
finalize the draft model courses and submit them for consideration by the Sub-Committee at
its next session.
Development of model courses on Basic training and Advanced training for personnel
serving on ships operating in polar waters
3.19 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the offer by Argentina, Canada, Chile,
Finland, Norway, the United States and CLIA to develop model courses on Basic training and
Advanced training for personnel serving on ships operating in polar waters, under the
coordination of Canada, and invited them to submit the draft revised model courses for
consideration by the Sub-Committee.
3.20 The Sub-Committee appreciated the initiative of Singapore to develop model courses
for Ratings as able seafarer engine in a manned engine-room or designated to perform duties
in a periodically unmanned engine room, and for Ratings forming part of a watch in a manned
engine-room or designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned engine-room, as set
out in documents HTW 3/3/5 and HTW 3/3/6.
3.21 In the ensuing discussion the following views were expressed that:
.1 the above model courses have not been circulated in advance and should
therefore be validated at the next session;
.2 they should be validated in accordance with the Revised Guidelines set out
in MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.15;
.3 the model courses for ratings in the deck and engine departments should
preferably be developed by the same course developers;
.4 if deck and engine ratings and able seafarers courses are developed by
different developers, the developers should work in close cooperation to
ensure that the contents are harmonized;
.5 there was no need for model courses for ratings and able seafarers (deck
and engine) as their training was based on sea-going service; and
3.22 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee agreed that there is a need for model
courses for Able seafarer deck and Ratings forming part of a navigational watch to facilitate
training of able seafarers and ratings.
3.23 In this context, the delegation of Germany offered to develop the model courses for
able seafarer deck and ratings forming part of a navigational watch.
3.24 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the offer by Germany to develop model
courses for Able seafarer deck and Ratings forming part of a navigational watch, and invited
Germany and Singapore to submit the draft revised model courses for deck and engine
department Able seafarers and Ratings for consideration by the Sub-Committee at its next
session.
3.25 The delegation of China, having revised the model course on Radar navigation at
operational level, offered to revise the model course on Radar Navigation at management
level. The Sub-Committee accepted with appreciation the offer by China and invited them to
submit the revised model course, in accordance with the Revised Guidelines
(MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.15), to the next session of the Sub-Committee for validation.]
Review of model courses and validation in accordance with the Revised Guidelines
(MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.15)
Review Groups
3.27 The Sub-Committee recalled that Review Groups should include all stakeholders from
Member States, international organizations, representatives from the maritime industry,
maritime training and education establishments, seafarer representatives and other relevant
professional organizations, to allow wide participation of experts.
.10 Review Group on model course for Ratings as Able seafarer deck.
3.30 The Sub-Committee invited interested delegations to submit their contact details to
the Secretariat. The composition of the Review Groups established at this session is set out in
annex [...].
3.31 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee, taking into account the urgent need for
updated model courses by STCW Parties to implement the 2010 Manila Amendments to the
STCW Convention and Code, referred document HTW 3/3/7 to the Drafting Group to be
established on validation of model courses, for the preparation of the terms of reference for
course developers and the review groups identified in paragraph [3....] above.
3.32 The Sub-Committee established the Drafting Group on Validation of model courses,
under the chairmanship of Capt. Kersee Deboo (India), and instructed it, taking into account
decisions and comments in plenary, to consider documents HTW 3/3/1, HTW 3/3/2,
HTW 3/3/3, HTW 3/3/4 and HTW 3/3/7 and:
.1 compare the scope of the provisions in the STCW Code related to training in
documents HTW 3/3/1 (Advanced Training for chemical tanker cargo
operations), HTW 3/3/2 (Radar navigation at operational level),
HTW 3/3/3 (Personal Safety and Social Responsibilities) and
HTW 3/3/4 (Engine-Room Simulator) and the contents of the aforementioned
draft model courses as presented, with a view to validation by the
Sub-Committee;
.2 taking into account the annex to document HTW 3/3/7 (Secretariat) that
provides a template, prepare draft terms of reference for course developers
and Review Groups in accordance with MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.15, annex 2, for
the following model courses which have been authorized by the
Sub-Committee to be developed or reviewed with a view to validation by
HTW 4:
.10 draft model course for Ratings as Able seafarer deck, and
3.33 On receipt of the report of drafting group (HTW 3/WP.6), the Sub-Committee
approved it in general, and took action as summarized in the following paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the
decisions taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]
3.34 The Sub-Committee recalled that validation of model courses by the Sub-Committee
in this context meant that it found no grounds to object to their contents. In doing so, the
Sub-Committee did not approve the documents and, they could therefore, not be regarded as
official interpretations of the Convention.]
4.1 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat (HTW 3/4),
detailing fraudulent certificates found on board ships during inspections or reportedly being
used, as reported to the Secretariat for the year 2014 and 2015, and urged Member
Governments to report details of fraudulent certificates detected in the revised reporting format
(STW 38/17, annex 1).
4.2 The Sub-Committee, noting the large number of fraudulent certificates reported by
Parties, reiterated the invitation to Member Governments and international organizations, to
submit proposals on a strategy to address the problems associated with fraudulent certificates
of competency to the next session.
4.3 The statement by the delegation of Ukraine is set out in annex [].
4.4 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat that the
certification verification facility through the IMO website had been used 12,486 times during
the year 2015.
4.5 In this context, the Sub-Committee urged Member Governments to provide the
Secretariat with updated information to facilitate verification of certificates, and to respond in a
timely manner to requests for verification of certificates.
4.6 The delegation of the Bahamas requested clarification regarding any follow-up action
taken if the information provided was incorrect, and the Sub-Committee clarified that Parties
are required to have in place electronic databases and proper point of contact
after 1 January 2017.
4.7 In this context, the delegation of India informed the Sub-Committee that they had
introduced an electronic certificate verification system and invited Member States to contact
them when necessary.
5.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 93, taking into account the need for further
guidance on implementation of the 2010 Manila Amendments, had extended the target
completion date of the output on "Development of guidance for the implementation of
the 2010 Manila Amendments", until the end of the transitional arrangements, i.e. 2017.
5.2 The Bahamas (HTW 3/5) provided information outlining its experience with the
implementation of the 2010 Manila Amendments to the STCW Convention and Code, in
particular, in issuing certification to seafarers and conducting STCW audits of training centres,
and identified the need for developing appropriate STCW guidance to avoid unnecessary
delays, administrative burden and cost to seafarers, ships, companies and STCW Parties due
to an absence of such guidance on the application of the STCW Convention's requirements.
5.3 In the ensuing discussion, the following general views were expressed:
.3 some of the issues raised in the document needed further clarity; and
.4 caution is urged when addressing issues that may be outside the 2010
Manila Amendments.
5.4 The Sub-Committee agreed to the request of the delegation of the Bahamas to
consider issues relating to "Training" or "Instruction" and the phrase "Before being assigned to
any shipboard duties" in sections 5 and 6, respectively, of document HTW 3/5 also under
agenda item 10, as they would have a bearing on the discussions relating to passenger
ship-specific training in document HTW 3/10 (see also paragraph 10.8).
"Training" or "Instruction"
5.5 The following views were expressed during the discussion on the clarification of the
difference between the terms "training" and "instruction":
.2 any issues not relating to the 2010 Manila Amendments were outside the
mandate of the present output on "Guidance for the implementation of
the 2010 Manila Amendments" and should therefore not be discussed by the
Sub-Committee;
.5 familiarization training does not require the issuance of a CoC or CoP but
only requires documentary evidence.
5.6 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee agreed to refer the above issues to
Working Group 1 on Training Matters, established under agenda item 10, to consider them
from the perspective of passenger ships and to advise the Sub-Committee as appropriate. The
Sub-Committee further agreed that the term "training" and "instruction" were clear and does
not require additional clarification.
5.7 The following views were expressed during the discussion on the clarification of the
phrase "Before being assigned to any shipboard duties":
.1 the phrase "before being assigned to any shipboard duties" has been in use
and its intent was quite clear;
.4 the requirement is very clear and there was no need to provide any further
clarification.
5.8 The Sub-Committee agreed that as this phrase has been in use and its intent was
clear, there was no need to provide any further clarification.
5.9 The Sub-Committee, during its consideration of the remaining issues in document
HTW 3/5, invited general comments on the following issues therein:
.1 revalidation of certificates;
Revalidation of certificates
5.10 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.6 any discussion on this issue required the approval of a new output by the
Maritime Safety Committee.
5.11 The Sub-Committee agreed that this issue was outside the mandate of the assigned
output on "Guidance for the implementation of the 2010 Manila Amendments" and that would
require the approval of a new output for the agenda of the Sub-Committee by the Maritime
Safety Committee.
5.13 The Sub-Committee agreed that this issue did not require further clarification since
the requirements are clear.
5.14 The Sub-Committee agreed that this issue did not require additional clarification, and
Administrations are reminded that the Electro-Technical Officer requirements will come into
force by 1 January 2017 and seafarers serving as ETOs must be trained and certified
accordingly.
5.15 During the discussion on Offshore training and certification guidance the following
views were expressed that:
.2 familiarization training in the STCW Convention did not specify any frequency
for the training;
.3 the requirement in the aforementioned resolution was not consistent with the
requirements in the STCW Code; and
5.16 The Sub-Committee recognized that there was an inconsistency in the provisions
relating to familiarization training requirements in the STCW Code and in
resolution A.1079(28). In view of the 2010 Manila Amendments to the STCW Convention and
STCW Code, consequential amendment to resolution A.1079(28) would be required to align
the familiarization training requirements.
5.17 The Sub-Committee agreed that this was a consequential amendment and, therefore,
further agreed to recommend to the Maritime Safety Committee that this inconsistency needed
to be aligned to harmonize the aforementioned familiarization training requirements. The
Sub-Committee proposed the deletion of paragraphs 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of resolution A.1079(28),
for consideration by the Committee.
5.18 The Sub-Committee agreed that there were explicit requirements for certification
under regulation I/2 of the Convention, where Administrations would need to establish
electronic verification by 1 January 2017, and there was no need for further clarifications in this
regard.
Updating MSC.1/Circ.1174
5.19 The Sub-Committee agreed that this issue was outside the mandate of the assigned
output on "Guidance for the implementation of the 2010 Manila Amendments", and would
require the approval of a new planned output for the Sub-Committee by the Maritime Safety
Committee to update the circular.
5.20 New Zealand (HTW 3/5/1) commented on the proposal in document HTW 2/6/1
(China) which provided information on its analysis of various reporting and information
communication obligations of Parties under article IV, VIII, IX of the STCW Convention and
section A-1/7 of the STCW Code from the perspectives of transparency and legal effect, and
suggested that a future practical application of a GISIS module could reduce the administrative
burden for the implementation of the STCW Convention.
5.21 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.3 caution must be exercised not to include reports that were not required by
the Convention;
.5 it was not clear how much the GISIS module will be utilized;
5.22 The Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/5/1 to Working Group 2 on Training
Matters, to be established, for further consideration, together with the annex of document
HTW 2/6/1 (China).
5.23 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95 (MSC 95/22, paragraphs 9.12 to 9.14) had
instructed the Sub-Committee to consider the existing standards of colour vision and eyesight
acuity for seafarers and:
.2 advise the Committee on the best way forward for the development of a
long-term solution to colour vision and eye-sight acuity standards for
seafarers.
5.24 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by Japan in
document HTW 3/INF.2 on a testing method for colour vision acuity for Japanese engineering
personnel.
5.25 The Sub-Committee, in accordance with the instructions of the Committee, invited
Member States and international organizations to submit comments and proposals related to
standards of colour vision and eyesight acuity to HTW 4 for consideration.
5.26 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by New Zealand
in document HTW 3/INF.4 on a recommendation made by the Transport Accident Investigation
Commission of New Zealand in relation to the grounding of the vessel M.V. Rena
(IMO No.8806802).
5.27 The Sub-Committee established Working Group 2 on Training Matters and instructed
it, taking into account comments and decisions made in the plenary, to:
.1 consider documents HTW 3/5/1 and HTW 2/6/1, and advise the
Sub-Committee, as appropriate; and
5.28 On receipt of the report of Working Group 2 (HTW 3/WP.4), the Sub-Committee
approved it in general, and took action as summarized in the following paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the
decisions taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
6.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95, having considered document MSC 95/19/3
(Canada et al.), proposing the review of the annex to the 1995 STCW-F Convention to align
the standards of the Convention with the current state of the fishing industry, included in
the 2016-2017 biennial agenda of the HTW Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda of
HTW 3, a new output on "Comprehensive review of the 1995 STCW-F Convention" with a
target completion year of 2018 (MSC 95/22, paragraph 19.41 and annex 23).
Defining the scope for the comprehensive review of the STCW-F Convention
6.2 Iceland, Japan and Norway (HTW 3/6) provided information on the proposed areas of
the annex to the 1995 STCW-F Convention that need to be considered to define the scope of
the comprehensive review of the STCW-F Convention to align the structure of the STCW-F
with that of the STCW Convention, including regulations and Code.
6.3 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.8 the review should not introduce requirements of other IMO instruments and
should not be aligned with other IMO instruments that are not yet in force;
.9 the review should take account of the reality and difficulties in the fishing
industry;
.10 the Convention should be brought up to date taking into account of technical
developments in the industry;
.11 the principles and scope for the review must be clearly defined; and
6.4 After an in-depth discussion, the Sub-Committee agreed that there was a need, as a
first step, to establish the principles and the scope of the review.
6.6 On receipt of the relevant part of the report of Working Group 2 (HTW 3/WP.4), the
Sub-Committee approved it in general, and took action as summarized in the following
paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the
decisions taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
7.1 The Nautical Institute and InterManager (HTW 3/7) provided, for preliminary
consideration by the Sub-Committee, information on fatigue and its relation to the major area
of concern to seafarers, in particular the Master/Chief Mate two-watch watchkeeping system,
whereby the navigation of the ship is solely conducted by the master and one watchkeeping
officer, and proposed to amend annex 5 of resolution A.1047(27) on Principles of minimum
safe manning, so as to exclude the master from regular watchkeeping duties.
7.2 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95 (MSC 95/22, paragraphs 9.18 and 9.19),
when considering the proposal by the United Kingdom (document MSC 95/9/3) in relation to
revising the Guidance on fatigue mitigation and management (MSC/Circ.1014), had agreed
that SOLAS regulation V/14 and resolution A.1047(27) on Principles of minimum safe manning
should not be amended.
7.3 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.3 the linkage between fatigue and manning to be taken into account during the
revision of the guidelines on fatigue mitigation;
.5 the issue of manning of ships was outside the scope of the assigned output;
and
7.4 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee did not agree to amend annex 5 of
resolution A.1047(27), as proposed in document HTW 3/7, as it was not consistent with the
instructions from MSC 95.
7.5 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information contained in document
HTW 3/INF.5 (MAIIF and IMPA) relating to the dissemination of an educational poster with
simple graphics and text, to improve understanding and awareness during passage under
pilotage.
7.6 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information contained in document
HTW 3/INF.6 (China) on a research project conducted by the China Ocean Shipping (Group)
Company training centre on seafarers' lookout information processing at sea and related
training.
8.2 Australia (document HTW 3/8) provided a proposal for the revision of the Guidelines
on Fatigue in the annex to MSC/Circ.1014, which took into account the outcome of discussions
at HTW 2 and MSC 95, and was based on contemporary fatigue and sleep research, that
included a risk-based approach to managing fatigue at sea.
8.3 The United States (document HTW 3/8/1) provided general support for the proposed
draft revised Guidelines on fatigue in the annex to MSC/Circ.1014 (document HTW 3/8), and
provided an alternative proposal for Module 2 set out in its annex.
8.4 ICS (document HTW 3/8/2) provided comments on the proposal for revised
Guidelines on Fatigue in document HTW 3/8, and proposed general principles relating to the
scope, style, structure and content of the guidance to be taken into account during the revision
of the Guidelines on Fatigue, as annexed to MSC/Circ.1014.
8.5 The Nautical Institute (document HTW 3/8/3) provided comments on the proposal for
revised Guidelines on Fatigue in document HTW 3/8, which aimed to complement the
guidelines by introducing the concept of Human Performance and Limitation (HPL) developed
by them as a means to enhance safety for the maritime domain.
8.6 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.6 document HTW 3/8 provides a more robust basis for the review;
.8 FRMS should be only one of the tools and not the only tool for fatigue
management;
.10 guidance should be practical and provide flexibility to manage fatigue for all
stakeholders, be easy to read and not too academic;
.12 the diversity of ships and shipping companies should be taken into account;
.13 a holistic view of all factors related to fatigue mitigation must be considered;
.14 the instructions of the Committee not to amend principles of manning and
SOLAS regulation V/14 must be adhered;
.16 draft proposal places primary responsibility on the master and seafarers with
a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) that is subject to the
documentation requirements of the ISM Code Safety Management System;
.19 review of MSC/Circ.1014 should take into account the principles in document
HTW 3/8/2;
.20 Module 6 should not include issues related to administrative burdens; and
.5 the FMRS, as proposed in document HTW 3/8, is not the only way to address
fatigue (Module 2) and, therefore, should take into account document
HTW 3/8/1 when amending Module 2.
8.8 The Sub-Committee agreed not to send document HTW 3/8/3 to the working group
since there was a need for a more concrete proposal, and encouraged the Nautical Institute to
submit a proposal to HTW 4.
8.9 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by France in
document HTW 3/INF.8 on a study regarding compliance with minimum requirements
concerning rest hours on board coastal trade ships using a 6 hour on / 6 hour off two-watch
system.
.1 consider documents HTW 3/8, HTW 3/8/1 and HTW 3/8/2, together with
document MSC 95/9/3, and develop draft revised Guidelines on Fatigue, for
consideration by the Sub-Committee; and
8.11 Having considered the report of Working Group 3 (HTW 2/WP.5), the Sub-Committee
approved it in general, and took action as summarized in the following paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the
decisions taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
9.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95, having considered document MSC 95/19/6
(Canada et al.), included the new output "Revised guidelines on the implementation of the
International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations (resolution A.1071(28)) on
training audits", on the agenda of the HTW Sub-Committee for the 2016-2017 biennium with a
target completion year of 2016.
9.2 Document MSC 95/19/6 proposed that all routine ISM audits (initial, annual,
intermediate and renewal) should provide practical training opportunities for trainee auditors
and proposed amendments to the Revised guidelines on the implementation of the ISM Code
by Administrations (resolution A.1071(28)), as set out in the annex to document MSC 95/19/6.
9.3 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.4 the work and responsibilities of Administrations and ROs are not the same
and therefore the requirements should not be aligned; and
9.4 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee instructed Working Group 3 on Human
Element Issues, established under agenda item 8, to consider document MSC 95/19/6 and to
prepare draft amendments to the Revised guidelines on the implementation of the International
Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations (resolution A.1071(28)) for consideration
by the Sub-Committee, with a view to subsequent approval by the Committees.
9.5 Having considered the part of the report of Working Group 3 (HTW 2/WP.5), the
Sub-Committee approved it in general, and took action, as summarized in the following
paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the decisions
taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
.5 no tables of competence were required for tier one, while tiers two
and three should include tables of competence; and
.3 invited the Committee to extend the target completion year for the output
"Review of the STCW passenger ship-specific safety training" to 2016.
10.2 The United States and CLIA (HTW 3/10) proposed a revision of the draft amendments
to the STCW Convention and Code related to the training requirements for personnel on
passenger ships as part of an active approach to enhance passenger ship safety in light of
significant industry changes.
10.3 ICS and INTERFERRY (HTW 3/10/1) proposed a different text for amending the
STCW Convention and Code relating to the special training for personnel on passenger ships,
a key principle of which was that personnel were only required to complete training that was
relevant to their designated capacity, duty and responsibility.
10.4 In the ensuing discussion, the following views relating to documents HTW 3/10 and
HTW 3/10/1 were expressed that:
10.7 In this regard, and in the context of passenger ship-specific training, the
Sub-Committee also considered the proposals in sections 5 and 6 of document HTW 3/5. (see
also paragraphs 5.4 to 5.6).
10.8 In the ensuing discussion the following views were expressed, in particular related to
this agenda item, that:
.4 the intent of the phrase "before being assigned to any shipboard duties" is
clear and does not need any further guidance.
10.9 After an in-depth discussion, the Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/10 as the
base document, and, taking into account some points from document HTW 3/10/1 and
section 5 of document HTW 3/5 relating to 'Training and Instructions', to Working Group 1 on
Training Matters to be established, for detailed consideration and prepare draft amendments
to the STCW Convention and Code relating to revised training requirements for passenger
ships, for consideration by the Sub-Committee, with a view to approval by the Committee.
10.10 CLIA (HTW 3/10/3) recalled the output from the Cruise Ship Safety Forum related to
enhanced damage stability training programme, and provided comments which they
considered could be a basis for discussion on enhanced damage stability training during the
review of STCW passenger ship-specific safety training.
10.11 In this context, the Sub-Committee was informed that the third session of the
Sub-Committee for Ship Design and Construction (SDC 3) (HTW 3/WP.7):
.2 due to lack of time, SDC 3 was unable to finalize the draft Explanatory Notes
to the SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision and damage stability regulations, and
had decided to further consider this issue with a view to it being finalized at
SDC 4.
10.12 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee did not support the proposals in document
HTW 3/10/2 and the methodology for passenger ship-specific safety training for seafarers
therein.
10.13 The Sub-Committee established Working Group 1 on Training Matters and instructed
it, taking into account comments and decisions made in the plenary, to:
.1 consider document HTW 3/10 as the base document, taking into account
section 5 of document HTW 3/5 relating to Training and Instructions and
some points from document HTW 3/10/1, and prepare draft amendments to
the STCW Convention related to passenger ship-specific safety training for
consideration by the Sub-Committee, with a view to approval by the
Committee; and
10.14 Having considered the report of Working Group 1 (HTW 2/WP.3), the Sub-Committee
approved it in general, and took action, as summarized in the following paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the
decisions taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
11.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 93 included a new unplanned output in the
provisional agenda of SDC 2 on "Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 and associated
guidelines on damage control drills for passenger ships", with a target completion year of 2016,
in association with the HTW Sub-Committee (MSC 93/22, paragraph 20.5).
Outcome of SDC 3
11.2 The Sub-Committee considered document HTW 3/WP.7 (Secretariat) informing that
the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction, at its third session (SDC 3), had:
.1 finalized the draft new SOLAS regulation II-1/19-1, leaving the drill frequency
requirements in square brackets, and finalized the draft amendments to
SOLAS regulations III/1.4, III/30 and III/37 (document SDC 3/WP.4, annex 3),
as reproduced in the annex to HTW 3/WP.7; and
.3 the drill frequency did not intend to place a burden on seafarers and cause
fatigue; and
11.4 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.2 familiarization training should be dealt within STCW regulation I/14 and the
ISM Code; and
11.5 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee instructed Working Group 1 on Training
Matters, established under agenda item 10, taking into account comments and decisions made
in the plenary, to:
11.6 Having considered the part of the report of Working Group 1 (HTW 2/WP.3), the
Sub-Committee approved it in general, and took action, as summarized in the following
paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the decisions
taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
12.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that HTW 2 had considered the relevant output under
the agenda item on "First outline of the detailed review of the Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System (GMDSS)", for which the NCSR Sub-Committee had been assigned as the
coordinating organ and the HTW Sub-Committee as an associated organ. HTW 2, noting that
no documents had been submitted, had deferred further consideration to this session, pending
further input/referral from NCSR 3.
12.3 The Sub-Committee noted that the target completion year of this output was this year,
and the relevant new output was assigned to the Sub-Committee as an associated organ.
12.4 The Sub-Committee, noting that no documents had been submitted for consideration
or referred to the Sub-Committee by NCSR 2 for review, agreed to consider the relevant matter
under the new output at the next session, pending further input/referral from NCSR 3.
13.2 The Sub-Committee, noting that no documents had been submitted for consideration
or referred to the Sub-Committee by SSE 2 for review, deferred consideration to HTW 4
pending further input/referral from SSE 3.
.2 MSC 95 adopted the IGF Code, together with the associated SOLAS
amendments; and the related amendments to the STCW Convention and
Code and approved the associated STCW Circular; and
14.2 The Sub-Committee, noting that no documents had been submitted for consideration
or referred to the Sub-Committee by CCC 2, deferred consideration to HTW 4 pending further
input from CCC 3.
15.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 93 included an unplanned output on "Review
of the MODU Code, LSA Code and MSC.1/Circ.1206/Rev.1" in the provisional agenda of
SSE 2 with a target completion date of 2016, in association with the HTW Sub-Committee, as
and when requested by the SSE Sub-Committee.
15.2 The Sub-Committee noted that SSE 2 had referred the proposals and comments
related to manning, as contained in documents SSE 2/12 (annex, paragraphs 12 and 13) and
SSE 2/12/1 (paragraph 12), to HTW 3 for consideration, with a view to providing general advice
and input to SSE 3.
15.3 The United States (document SSE 2/12, annex) had proposed:
15.4 Liberia et al. (document SSE 2/12/1), commenting on document SSE 2/12,
paragraph 12, proposed that the designation of the master as the PIC at all times, when using
dynamic positioning systems as a sole means of position-keeping, may conflict with the rights
of the coastal State over units engaged in the exploration of natural resources.
15.5 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.1 the issues referred could be more than operational issues, and maybe
outside the scope of the Sub-Committee;
15.7 Having considered the part of the report of Working Group 3 (HTW 3/WP.5), the
Sub-Committee approved it in general, and took action, as summarized in the following
paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the decisions
taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]]
[Outcome of MSC 95
16.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95 had approved the Sub-Committee's revised
biennial agenda for 2016-2017 and the provisional agenda for HTW 3, as set out in annexes 19
and 20 to document MSC 95/22.
Outcome of A 29
16.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that the Assembly, at its twenty-ninth session
(A 29), adopted resolutions A.1097(29) on Strategic plan for the Organization (for the six-year
period 2016 to 2021) and A.1098(29) on High-Level Action Plan of the Organization and
priorities for the 2016-2017 biennium.
16.3 Taking into account the progress made at the session, the Sub-Committee prepared
the biennial status report (see document HTW 3/WP.2, annex 1), as set out in annex [], for
consideration by MSC 96.
16.4 Taking into account the progress made at the session, the Sub-Committee prepared
its proposed provisional agenda for HTW 4 (see HTW 3/WP.2, annex 2), as set out in
annex [], for consideration by MSC 96.
16.6 The Sub-Committee agreed to establish at its next session working/drafting groups
on subjects to be selected from the following (see document HTW 3/WP.2, annex 3):
whereby the Chairman, taking into account the submissions received on the respective
subjects, would advise the Sub-Committee before HTW 4 on the final selection of such groups.
16.7 The Sub-Committee noted that the fourth session of the Sub-Committee has been
tentatively scheduled to take place from [30 January to 3 February] 2017.]
17.1 In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Maritime Safety Committee, the
Sub-Committee unanimously elected Ms. Mayte Medina (United States) as Chairman and
Ms. Farrah Fadil (Singapore) as Vice-Chairman for the year 2017.]
Guidelines for port State control officers on certification of seafarers' rest hours
.1 III 1 agreed to the draft MSC circular on Guidelines for port State control
officers on certification of seafarers' rest hours based on the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended, and manning requirements from the
flag State (III 1/18, annex 5) and referred it to HTW 2 for review; and
.2 HTW 2 reviewed the draft MSC circular and advised that further work on the
Guidelines was necessary at HTW 3, and the United States had offered to
prepare a document for submission to HTW 3, in collaboration with interested
Member Governments and international organizations on this matter.
18.2 The United States (document HTW 3/18/1) proposed changes to the draft guidelines
for port State control officers on certification of seafarers' rest hours by restructuring the original
draft guidelines to highlight the three disparate areas of inspection: 1. seafarer certification; 2.
vessel manning; and 3. seafarers' hours of rest, and also indicated that the tables found in the
annexes of the original draft guidelines contained duplications and inconsistencies and, if
retained, they required a thorough review to confirm their correctness.
18.3 In the ensuing discussion, the following views were expressed that:
.2 any concerns of port State control officers relating to manning issue should
be referred back to flag State authorities;
.3 the proposal extends beyond the framework of the request from the
III Sub-Committee;
.7 the guidelines related to seafarers hours of rest are within the purview of the
HTW Sub-Committee;
.10 guidelines should be drafted to harmonize the rest of the requirements and
not focus on detention of vessels;
.11 the guiding principles for port State control of the manning of a foreign ship
should be verification that the vessel and its personnel conform to the
international provisions as laid down in SOLAS, STCW and in the Principles
of minimum safe manning (resolution A.1047(27); and
.1 document HTW 3/18/1 should be the base document for discussion in the
working group;
.3 the III Sub-Committee should consider issues relating to port State control.
18.5 The Sub-Committee referred document HTW 3/18/1 to Working Group 1 on Training
Matters, for detailed consideration with a view to finalization of the draft Guidelines for port
State control officers on certification of seafarers' rest hours.
18.6 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee instructed Working Group 1, established
under item 10, taking into account the comments and decisions made in the plenary, to:
.1 consider document HTW 3/18/1 and prepare the draft MSC circular on
Guidelines for port State control officers on certification of seafarers' rest
hours based on the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended,
and manning requirements from the flag State, in particular, taking into
account paragraphs 6.2.24, 6.2.26, 6.4.2.2, 7.2.7, 7.3.2.4 and 7.3.2.14 of
document III 1/18, annex 5, and document III 2/16 (paragraph 7.12) for
consideration by the Sub-Committee.
18.7 Having considered the part of the report of Working Group 1 (HTW 3/WP.3), the
Sub-Committee approved it in general, and took action as summarized in the following
paragraphs:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the session, based
on the group's report and the actions requested therein, taking into account the decisions
taken by the Sub-Committee during subsequent discussions]
18.8 The Sub-Committee recalled that HTW 2 had instructed the Secretariat to undertake
an analysis of the status of footnotes in the STCW Convention following the approval of
MSC.1/Circ.1500 on Guidance on drafting of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention
and related mandatory instruments which could also be adhered to when considering
amendments to the STCW Convention and Code.
18.9 The Sub-Committee considered document HTW 3/18/2 (Secretariat) informing the
decision at MSC 61 on the status of footnotes in the STCW Convention, i.e. they should not
be considered as part of the Convention, and advising that in accordance with the guidance in
resolution A.911(22), footnotes are not to be regarded as mandatory instruments for treaty
purposes, since they do not appear in the authentic text of the parent convention, i.e. the
authentic texts of amendments to the STCW Convention and Code, and, therefore, footnotes
should continue to be considered as being non-mandatory.
18.10 In the ensuing discussion, the views were expressed that the status of notes in
STCW Code, section A-I/9 and the footnotes reflecting the IMO model courses was unclear.
18.11 The Sub-Committee clarified that the notes in section A-I/9 were for explanatory
purposes and were part of the Code, while IMO model courses only provided guidance to
facilitate the development of training programmes to meet the objectives of the STCW Code
and are not mandatory.
18.12 The Sub-Committee agreed that footnotes should not be considered as part of the
Convention and that footnotes do not appear in the authentic text of the STCW Convention
and Code, and therefore, confirmed that footnotes should continue to be considered as being
non-mandatory.
18.13 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information contained in document
HTW 3/INF.7 (IMCA) relating to training of dynamic positioning system (DP) operators.
18.14 The Sub-Committee noted information provided by the Secretariat (HTW 3/18 and
addendum) on the submissions made by the Parties in accordance with article VIII of the
STCW Convention on dispensations granted by them in the years 2014 and 2015. The
Sub-Committee also requested Member Governments to submit the information related to
dispensations issued in the format, as set out in the annex to document HTW 3/18.
18.15 In this regard, the delegation of the Bahamas requested a clarification on the purpose
of reporting dispensations, i.e. what follow-up action is taken by the Organization on receiving
these reports, and if these reports could be submitted directly to GISIS.
18.17 The Sub-Committee reminded Member Governments of the requirement for the
submission of the reports of independent evaluation pursuant to regulation I/8 of the
STCW Convention and section A-I/8 of the STCW Code, which requires a periodical
independent evaluation of a Party's quality standards system to be conducted at intervals of
not more than five years and for the report of this evaluation to be communicated to the
Secretary-General. In this context, the Sub-Committee urged STCW Parties to refer to
MSC.1/Circ.1164/Rev.15, with a view to ensuring that reports of independent evaluation
pursuant to regulation I/8 of the STCW Convention and section A-I/8 of the STCW Code are
submitted to the Secretary-General in a timely manner.
Expressions of appreciation
19.1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its ninety-sixth session, is invited to:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the meeting]
19.2 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its sixty-ninth session, is invited to:
[to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the Chairman after the meeting]
***
ANNEXES
___________